The Sun. — London, England, 1836-04-14 00:00:00

th at oil oreign service solitary confinement would be impos sible, Ind that he would therefore allow corporal punishments other." s ei mumstanee, by drum-head, court-martial And no lo w ', Vile Right Hon. Member then referred to the fol . l aC'assage in the evidence tf Jos. Flume, Esq., M. P. e-e -„1,10t4 nit a re understood to say, that upon service yele still mere et do away with the use of the lash ?—ln emergencies, vvhere men openly plunder or violate dolete rules leid tloWn e and *any othordee must be maintained, I et tee 'that theft arc teed , er immediate means of checking them. I do 'AA pre such, werefore, to say that I would do away wit 'the) power in th oe,p c ,ases ; but, like the offence of stealiiee,;•, 'the punishment, theueern disgraceful, would, I think, Meet the approbation of no n ,lftlY, if thus justly administered. It must be well keewn a e „ ce _,tarY men that the success of any enterprise h'. the field or( r_us upon the following it up and if men will disobey The _`;_rs s , and have recourse to plunder, ttrecess may be by that turned to defeat, and there must be, I apprehend. the "Le.,_ of repressing it on the instant." viutefeh would next refer to the evidence of Sir Jelttt Woodford, he certainly must characterise as a meet extraordinary fl 'lu en ent on the subject of military discipline. This Gallant litu e r stated, that " under particular circumstances of erne re Ileould(Yfberequiring an instant example, corporal punishments f ear at fittest, and, he presumed, most effectual in impressing hethe moment. It would be more effectual for only being L ' e s o e i d to on such occasions of necessity." In that opinion should C. Fergusson) entirely agreed ; necessity alone Gallant warrant the i n fliction of this punishment. But the fermerl Officer s t ate d a l so " that corporal pun i shments as th e Y exercised, h a d, in his opinion, a less good eff ec t th an % - ee P re sent mod e o f con fi nement and hard labour, solitary ton ment taken into account, ;which lie considered the best kind i r e}, ‘; he was of opinion further, "that supposing phLrd.ns of applying the punishment of imprisonment with i:heabour to be made more perfect and complete, corporal CO r ,, ments might be dispensed with on home service, for 4t4ntnon military offences committed under ordinary eireum eqicc,es." Among the extraordinary circumstances under ", in the' opinion of this Gallant Officer, corporal punish °n e ut might be inflicted, was wilful disobedience of a so ldi er peror Parade or u n d er arms, to the lawful command of his stye , or for striking or offering violence to an officer, theft fir.telecer disgraceful con d uct , an d f or t h e secon d o f fence for Fret: -e nness on duty, s l eep i ng on d uty , str iki ng or us i ng vio eto a non-commissioned officer. These offences the G a ll a nt cn r proposed should be punished by a prevotal court-mar risoli who are t o b e i nvested with the authority of a distinct gar ,„, court-ma r ti a l, w i t h t h e power to i nflict—how many lashes i4ritethe House suppose ?—no less than five hundred lashes,— Galla nt Now certainly it wa s rat h er i ncons i stent i n t hi s Officer, who expressed himself as opposed generally ,o the infliction of corporal punishment, to propose to give a serviced ti r o r dr t e a las co h u e r s t:martial the - Dower to inflict as many as five whilst, by the rules at present in force in the d ie , general courtenartial could only order three has n lashes. -4 Hear, hear.) The next authority to which he iti refer was that of Colonel G. Burrell, whose evidence ,ion as follows :--" Taking all circumstances into considera- C l u t i are Yen 'of opinion that, as far as Great Britain and Ire are coecerned, it would be possible to do away entirely viith c - b tn :Pe . ral punishment?—l must say I should be sorry . to 1 Z cline ed of the power ; but I think it would be practice- Th e ' f fe • we might apply for general courts martial, and these “iight be t ransporte d ; b ut we must h ave re f erence to a i t 7• er Power for such courts martial, and the delay would be e a t er, • I will state why I should o bj ec t t o th e pow er b e i ng ef tmt us ; suppose, in time of peace, we can obtain men coruat description that we can carry on the discipline of a ett rT_Vil , in lhout corporal punishment, if we should unfortunately ,iievoiveda war, we must take any able-bodied men who ue got t o fill our ran k s; and if the power were taken away new the the cou r t s martial, I am persuaded the legislature would r restor e it. The power had better therefore remain, it e enon ° a dead letter, with troops at home." The same Gal usin`nGPAcer being asked his opinion as to the possibility of dis th the pra c ti ce to t h e same extent i n t h e co l on i es , rep li e d his a " " he f oun d i t wou ld not answer ;" an d b e i ng as k e d f or e't''ason for thi s a pp re h ens i on , r e pli e d th a t " th e men d ran k wi e (in the colonies) to a great extent." Being asked also, „e'ether be thought it would be possible to do away with ;rPoral pun i shment when the army was in actual service in or field, h e replied, Certainly not I" But lie (Mr. C. w g lu s°n) would call upon the House to recollect that they that called upon to provide for the time of war as well as b ee t esr Peace, by their vote on this question to-night.-_( Hear, eli -r *) He would entreat them, therefore, to pause before thoughtally and in every case prohibited a practice which, „, at present but sparingly required, was found, under % . - • 14 • 4 1 circumstances, to be indispensable.—( Hear.) He ,I,Zuid refer the House now to the evidence of Col. Townsend, ° stated before the Commissioners that he had been very et lx • k aaS to do away with corporal punishments in his regi a—nt, and bad endeavoured to make a fair experiment to babstitute another system of punishment, the result of which, xfi e wever, was, that " he was almost convinced the punish heat of flogging could not be entirely done away with." e stated his opinion, that the infliction of corporal punish keel. had ' w more effect upon the men than any other." He 'we'd more beg attention to the following passages of this ane nt Officer's evidence : fi e ,: Have you had many instances of renewal of offence after tle ° :.g in the same individual ?—Not since I commanded r egiment. ,01)",1-lave you had many renewals of offence after solitary u nement ?—Yes, we have. wy r " Prom that observation, the impression upon your mind l e ?, t 1 ,41 he, that the one punishment had less effect upon the „t 1 of the individual than the other P—l think the solitary co t- ,„,..."unentent had less effect upon the mind of the man than e e r ta r _at, e punishment in improving him ; and also by way of '1 • ke, t ria " you any idea that the infliction of corporal punish ee,-;z In sight of the men has an injurious effect, in rather thO e g sympathy on the part of the soldiers?—No, I•do not verys extreme.esal punishment is not resorted to except in eas" G' ll ae text testimony he would refer to was that of Major saw o ral Sir Th o m a s P e arson, who stated that " he never 16, a ny good effects, but on the contrary, bad effects from (c Punishment of solitary confinement ;" and being asked, k Ar e You of opinion that the system of solitary confinement, ti r o 4 of corporal punishment, such punishment being en disc forbiddene would have the effect of maintaining proper eo e ,P li ne in the army?" He replied, "I consider that, if ten", °r ai punishment were abolished in the British army, the I - „" l 'atid of the British army would be virtually given up. di e se l l l l : der that it would be totally impossible to maintain such end .Plin e as would be necessary to uphold the character k ent re Putation of the British army, without corporal punish remainine• to be resorted to in case of necessity." eor tn g . asked also,-.," Is it your opinion that the infliction of it •„ Per al Punishment, attended by all the solemnities with which 4; 1- acc ompanied, has a considerable effect on the other sol 41s of the regiment who witness it?" He replied, ".deci aft Y see, Another very Gallant Officer, Colonel Mackinnon, c or e : rec ommending the removal of the incorrigible to some kieas Ott a foreign station, said that "until some plan of that gi nc , w as adopted, no a b an d on m e nt of the punishment of flog eetA could be thought of. Whether with the aid of some sec Plan as th a t i t m i g h t b e f oun d p oss ibl e , even on home that.,e,e' he was not a bl e t o say ; - but there could be no doubt li t i' ' 4 % sudd en promulgation of a law for the immediate abo - Thc% w ould be equivalent to a proclamation in favour of mutiny. sleZe,P n e nishment of flogging, if ever it were to be abolished, °e made grad ua lly t o disappear in practice by the silent al e i'!ntion o f ot h er met h o d s, b e f ore i ts express an d f orma l him t i t ,' °ll -" The G a ll an t Offi cer , i n reply to questions put to den e j the Commissioners, gave the following remarkable evi also eini,2,uPposing that an order was to issue from head-quarters si et ` e a 'Y to aboli s h t h e pract i ce o f fl ogg ing, c o uld you be an is I bl e fo r t h e discipline of the Coldstream Regiment, which to4 e °tv under y our command ?—I think not,decidedly ; I n o not be answerable for it. I thilik there would be muti e elienduct, and that would increase very much.. . e orpo Arc we then to understand that your opinion, is, that sit e r a,' Punishment should be resorted to in cases of neces tec4l,l•, but that the power of inflicting it should be re to re , . - --Alost decidedly. I conceive that if you were not , mi ght in th e power of punishing men b y flogging, the officers the m a s well p u ll o ff t h e i r b ats to t h e reg i ment , and wish -le Co f o nd - by, ,, Are W. Augustus Keate gave the following evidence; effe e Cj e you of opinion that corporal punishment has more cry tin deterring an individual from the re-commission of " tha n imprisoment, with hard labour ?—Yes, certainly. vrh o \filet your opinion of it as an example to other soldiers the of eels it ?—I have no doubt it is an example, and that r none. ter what you have stated, it is scarcely necessary to ask disci ,:liethter you conceive it would be possible to keep up the ltifli e P t ' n e of the 3d regiment of Guards, without the power of eicdit'g corporal punishment in certain cases?—lt is my de e F?pinion that it would not. would ter n your experience when on service, do you think it on th, ( 1 1 3 . e Possibl e , un d er any regu l at i ons w h atever , to carry 1. 1 sh oold ' se ipline of th e arm y w ith ou t cor p o ral punishment? he don e „ s aY, certai n l y not; I cannot concei ve how it could l Ni a • • %we:ler-General Sir J. M‘Lean's evidence contained the fol- Passage:_. tae Ati•e h t a T eLr e y e , r i P s o i r t al punishments have been less frequent in your opinion that the discipline of the rep.: ti °pil . Peen more or less easily maintained?-1 am service; th at oon that it has not been of advautage to the th e fit former times you tied up a man and flogged him, and eep.etixample was immediate and ood ; now a man knows ke ep „Y how far he may go • he knows he will not be tried e p art_ial unless he goes ' to a certain extent ; be wwill c onfiti in the extent, knowing he will have only a few days' ei n s t -m et for that." This Gallant Officer's experience ah ou ;° , hsandot:t that the punishment of confinement, with hard . eee been of no use whatever in reforming the culprit. `Ths ' er v e c at d . ' he ar.) In conclusion the Right Hon. Member e t , ? that if Hon. Gentlemen in that House had read ee J Port ion f • ri a j oi 0 the Report of the Commissioners, they had L ord ti');iiread the evidence of the Duke of Wellington and eoe no ' -, ; he need not therefore attempt to recapitulate or ‘‘,ho so lt .°Pon the statements of those two noble individuals, x ngle, li gh personal reputation wes such, that not the the • L doubt could existof the perfect sincerity with which th er 4i"ye. their evidene He would now ask the House whe- Hoe; z a e l , l 'e face of that evidence, and upon the authority of the M emb er Gallant Gallant Member for Barnstaple and of the Hon. 1 . 0 . n o one °r Hull, they were prepared to say that henceforth, 41 ,sfar ice case of crime, however disgraceful—whether, for should of theft, cheating, or embezzlement-e -th e lash gra cefel ; used by way of punishment appropriately dis ttt h otrl ' e ' If the House were prepared to say that neither ev er nor abroa, in peece nor in war, for any offence what adrinie..._`;`)trilPe°nral punishme - nt t should be used in the British oc eery much feared the whole system of military elto nete C was that an end. He maintained that if they parted (Ler • w lt th e right of inflicting corporal punishment, they parted with the right arm as far as regarded the proper discipline of the army.—( Hear, hear.) For his own iart 4 ,lm felt that he had but done his duty to his li!int part t s 'fi l i73 country by a b _e•reein_g• to the report wAliel Itql 'ficen ltil Wore the House. The yorilst'iooy'rt hitoi entered upon their t as k of imkakry With nebi k agsV Minds, and with every desire, if it were ficisSibte4 4.8 Assist in promoting a milder code of punish ment; b1..11 l'rem a careful e xamination of the evidence, both t.S it was being delivered, and since it was privet! ) 11;04. 11 ‘ , fell VOW io say that h re e ad did it any material change notov r se a e n dt the over po ss s i e bi v e ii r t a y l ( t ) i c in e e ff s e , ,,..t2:a g at present, ~. .. ;,' %; 1 / 4 1, 4 W.-. ?OUTER thought .such an , inratovemeut f:_`...:o oe effected in the discipline of thn b.',:io; it to render abolition of flogging not only prkedeable but desirable. He could never tarn* ennut to the soldier being the victim of cor poral pklnlshment so long as nothing was atterarttd r. 1% his tXitclioration. Had they heard of an.! ,, tiltlie; oeing attempted for the improvement of theft* 'Coral or religious education, and if anything hsd been attempted to any extent? No rewards had been offered for good behaviour, either of a mflits.ty or civil character. They had trot placed before the Soldier the prospect of prfatt'Stion, or indulged the hope of a situation in the r..t.diZe or other capacity. Nothing had been done eithe to eradicate the prevailing viv6 of drink ing, wikkh, bn sides had been held t , 3 be the bottom of all InititAry excesses. So math'; indeed, had it been encou raged by the Legielit'are, that they had almost made it an institution.--(A laugh.) The establishments in the Metro polis chtily arising around them gave maple evidence that thig besetting sin was allowed to proceed unchecked. He would wish that on this anti similrr subjects Hon. Gentlemen opposite would tie less limited and contracted views, and that they would look in a more broad and comprehensive Matti s into questions. When the metion was the other evening brought forward relative to the reduction of the Guards, he was sorry to perceive that it was made a matter of pecuniary ealctilation, and the distinction was drawn be tween five shillings and three and eightpence. The Mem bers an that side of the House (the Ministerial side) viewed the question in a different manner; they viewed them among the first in the rank of bur defenders—they would do nothing to degrade the Guards, who were the best and prin cipal representatives of our military achievements. He knew thedelic-aey that very properly existed when speaking on these topics ) but when he saw before him the Hon. and Gallant General (Sir H. Hardinge) he entered upon these matters with great fear And nervousness.--( Laughter.) That Hon. and Gallant General had performed his duty nobly iu all the functions of peace and war.—(Hear, hear.) But when at first, without experience, he set foot on the Continent, what would he have done? How could he have met the captains of fifty battles. with an enemy that brought twenty thousand men against ten thousand into the field, but by the high spirit of an Englishman, superadded to a fine education? Reform rarely first began among the members of the profession to be reformed. In the profession of the law, of which he once had the honour to be a member, the reform of the laws did not commence with the profession. Nor did ecclesiastical reform originate with the clergy, but with the laity ; and military im provements could not be expected to begin with the army. A great deal had been said about the military conscription of the French army. Now he thought that, from the evidence be fore them upon that subject, there was not only a well-founded hope, but almost a demonstrative assurance, that the punish ment of flogging might be dispensed with. France could not have arrived at the height of military glory she had but from a well-regulated system. " They will not flog," said the Honourable Member, " but they will. shoot." The Hon. Member then proceeded that he had lately had an oppor tunity of obtaining from the War Office at Paris, through the medium of a cavalry officer of high rank and character, a return containing an account of all those offences which were punished with death, and they were three—namely, desertion to the enemy, treason, and striking a superior officer. This information he received from a friend, a gentleman of distin guished character, and he had no objection in saying that it was (so we understood) Count Guillet. If, then, it appeared that the French army could do without flogging, and only visited the punishment of death on these three offences, why were the men who were the conquerors of those soldiers at Waterloo to be worse treated? He knew that the present motion would be got rid of, but that ultimately it would. be carried ; and he was desirous that it should not be left to an other House of Commons to achieve this desirable object. In another election many of them might lose their seats— (4aueiter)--and he wanted to share the glory of effecting the abolition. 21, iEsoi, Nintiher N Umber Number kit :With- Number Sentenced to sentenced on i horn Tears. meta of tried by Tarlous to Cor poral British Courts PunishMents , COrporal Punishment Army. Martial; other than Plinisli. - . was CoFpdral. trlent. inflicted. ---.;:—",,,,—,..-, ....-----....._:=.:. ... -...--..,—___. teA ' 93,946 4,704 2,2'0 ,' ,1511 1 ,737 1821 111,058 5,514 ‘2.iyi 2,7.2 2,‘:42 1827 111, 'O7 5,310 2,511 2,632 2,291 1828 110,912 5,:114 2,779 2,071 2,143 1829 103,747 4,732 2,70:3 ,940 1,118 1830 103014 :),747 3,743 1,814 1012 Izi3l 103,413 7,370 5,4.17 1,611 1,477 -- Total 28,553 17,270 I 10 , 070 i p i .,,, i Year. Number Flogged. 1830 • 655 1831 1832 1833 Colonel P. THOMPSON read some extracts from the evidence he had given before the Committee of Inquiry upon military punishments, and contended that an improper in ference had been drawn from the statements he had made. With reference to other points, the Hon. and Gallant Colo nel continued—he admitted that he had stated that he con sidered there would be great difficulty in doing away with corporal punishment partially, and that the only effectual plan was not to permit it at all. He thought if any individual colonel of a regiment attempted it, the odds were that he failed. If, however, the experiment were tried in one or two regiments newly raised, and it was understood that they would be disbanded if it did not succeed, he thought the officers would find ways and means to maintain disci pline without it. It had been stated by officers of the high est character in that House, that the soldier was insensible to the degradation of corporal punishment. He thought the contrary. Would they wait for a mutiny? The press was daily speaking on the subject, and he could easily suppose some spirit more fiery than another in the army—he could easily suppose some officer of greater nerves and more bile during one of these disgusting exhibitions, with a manly sense of the indecent, filthy, unmanly, degrading, and abominable punishment, putting himself at the head of the soldiers, and spreading a flame that would not be easily quenched. " Shall Igo further," said the Hon. and Gallant Colonel. " You see one before you cold and phlegmatic. I was once as near to telling my men as pulling a trigger is to not doing it, Men, if you are such fools as to submit to such an abomination, I am not.' " The Hon. and Gallant Colonel concluded by ap pealing to those Hon. Members who had constituents of opi nions more in unison with the march of the public mind than their own, to be warned of the danger in opposing the abolition of flogging. Lord SANDON read an extract from the evidence of Co lonel Woodford, and contended that, according to that evi dence, although the punishment ought not to be abolished, on no occasion was five hundred lashes requisite, and in no case ought more than two hundred to be inflicted. It was noto rious that those who had ever been most opposed to the sys tem of corporal punishment were always the first to abandon their own principle in practice. It was said that another system was effectual in France and Prussia, and that it had the best results. The materiel of both armies was widely different from that of the British army, being of a far better nature. Yet what was the fact? With all these advantages the French and Prussian armies were not in point of discipline in anywise equal to the British army. He had the opinion of a Prussian officer of rank that that army would not be able to dispense with corporal punishment in any war less national than that which existed between them and the French, and several French officers had expressed their belief that it was only in conseqUence of the mode of raising the French army by con scription that it was possible to abolish corporal punishment in Mr. HLTME said in 1833 he (Mr. Hume )had submitted a motion to the House for the abolition of corporal punishment in his Majesty's service; and, notwithstanding that the Ministry were against it, he lost it, or rather he carried the principle by a minority of eleven. That almost unanimous expression of the opinion of the House was the cause of the general order alluded to by the Noble Lord, which be (Mr. Hume) should shortly proceed to examine. After the speech of the Right Hon. Judge-Advocate, contrasted with the sentiments which he had uttered on former occasions, no one could for a moment doubt of his being influenced in his conduct by the position in which lie was placed. That Hon. Gentleman had brought for ward a one-sided case in his defence of the system of corporal punishment, and in so far had not acted with perfect candour towards the House. The general order of the . Commander-i n signed John Macdonnell, Adjutant- General, stated that corporal punishments were from thenceforward to be limited too three classes of offences. He (Mr. Hume) should proceed to show that almost every offence of whatever nature might be in cluded under the least strained construction of one or other of these three classes. The first class; included " mutiny, insu bordination, violence, or using or offering violence to a superior officer." What was meant by insubordination ? Tha,t was for the interpretation of any inferior officer, and a court martial could be at once called upon his construction of it. The se cond class was drunkenness on duty. That at least had the merit of being explicit. The third was the vaguest of all, " away. with arms, accoutrements, or necessaries, stealing from a comrade or fellow-soldier, or other disgraceful conduct." Now, who was there that did not see the illimi table extent to which the words " or other disgraceful con duct" led ? The Right Eon. Member for Kirkcudbright had corrected him (Mr. Hume) when he made an observation re lative to the accuracy of the returns quoted by him ; but he (Mr. Hume) would correct him in turn. The returns quoted by the Right Hon. and Learned Member were not accurate. He (Mr. Hume) held the true and accurate returns in his hand. The Hon. Member then proceeded to read the follow ing statements : " ( Circular.—Confidential. ) " Horse Guards, August 24, 1833. " Sir,—His Majesty's Government having signified to the General Commanding-in-Chief the King's command that until further orders, corporal punishments may be applied to the following offences only, I have the honour to express Lord Hill's desire that you guide yourself accordingly, taking care that, except in the instances herein specified, the said punish. meat shall on no account be inflicted, viz..:— " 1. For mutiny, insubordination and violence, or using or offering violence to superior officers. " 2. Drunkenness on duty. 3. Sale of, or making away with, arms, ammunition, ac stealing fr om co mrades, or other d co is u g t r r a e c m e efunitsconduct. essaries, " It will doubtless occur to you that the object of the new instructions is not to render the inflictio n of corporal punish ment for the future more frequent or more certain than it is at present, even in the cases to which it is now to be restricted; but, on the contrary, that the intention is to restrain it as much as it may be possible to do so with safety to the discipline of of the army.—l have the honour to be, Sir, your very obedient humble servant, c, .1 0 11 N MACDONALD, Adjutant-General, Officer Commanding." But this corporal punishment was, it was true, limited to three descriptions of offence ; but was it possible for any man to deny that in that class every offence which a soldier could commit was not included ?—( Hear, hear.) He had now a word or two to say in reference to what had fallen from the Right Hon. and Learned Judge-Advocate. He (Mr. C. Ferg usson ) had told h i m i n co nsequence of his having dis sented fro m a statement of his during his speech that h e (Mr. THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 1836. Hume) kncW nothlrl; r,C.t;Ariisfr:On Elie flnise Collards v,\l4.ea 'Of there V;dt - 3 , .. - 4liiini.,lll - nents. Now, his in f!ctmqien. dhoti the subject of those returns was even better than that of the Hon. and Learned Member ; and it so hap pened that he held in his hand at that moment three returns connected with the subject, all subscribed by the Adjutant- General, which would at real l it!lre !if tliC kupprcssed by thb Learned judge _ nvocatc Returii sbowina t .c.stablisbmcn ! o .1 11.1 s in tit 't ; 11 6 • " 184 both the N!i9cl irqm ,t? nirrobel• 61' tiled ny courts-martial in each of the said years ; thq number sentenced to various punishments other than corporal punishment ; the number sentenced to corporal punishmeAtts ; and the number on w ho m corporal indiadt " Adjutant-General's. Ciftec, Feb. " N.B.—The above numbers do not include courts-martial held in the undermentioned regiments, the annual returns not having yet been received from those corps abroad, viz.: In 1830—the 13th, 29th, 49th, and 98th Regiments; in 1831— the 16th Lancers, and 13th and 49th Regiments. (Signed) "JOHN MACDONALD, From this it appeared, that in the five years beginning in 1827, and ending in 1831, 28,553 soldiers had been tried by courts-martial, and that of this number 17,270 had been sen tenced to various punishments. other than corporal ; that 10,370 had been sentenced to corporal punishment, and that such punishment had been inflicted on 9,321 of this number. It further appeared from this document, that in 1825 the pro portion of those on whom corporal punishment was inflicted to the entire establishment of the British army was 1 to 57 ; in 1826, 1 to 40 ; in 1827, 1 to 48 ; in 1828, 1 to 51 ; in 1829, 1t059 ; in 1830, 1t062 ; and in 1831, Ito 70. The next return to which he would direct attention was one dated the 26th of February, 1834. From this it appeared that the num ber of corporal punishments inflicted in the army in each year, from 1830 to 1833, both inclusive, was as follows Total 2,154 This was confined to the United Kingdom alone. Now, this was a point on which the Right Hon. and Learned Judge Ad vocate had made an error—one in which it was but fitting he should be set right. But, to come to tho question really be fore the House, he (Mr. Hume) considered it of much more importance than either the Noble Lord or the Right Hon. Gentleman seemed to think it. The Right Hon. Gentleman had said that the system of corporal punishment could not be got rid of in the army while it existed in the criminal code of the country. To advance such an argument was an unfair way of dealing with the question. He (Mr. Hume) wished it abolished in the criminal code as well as in the army. It was said that the British army was of a class different and beneath that which formed the army of other nations ; but what was the fact? At least one-half of it was com posed of agricultural labourers—men who, from the nature of their occupations, were supposed to be much tnore inno cent of vice than almost any other in the community.— (Cries of " Oh.") Yet it was urged that it would be im possible to deal with them unless recourse were to be had to the degrading practice of flogging. Was the inference borne out by the facts ? He (Mr. Hume) had had a large and ex tensive experience of corporal punishments in the army : he knew its influence with the men, and the feeling of the offi cers respecting it; yet he could safely say, that he believed it entirely inoperative with the former, while he was sure the latter were disgusted with it. The Right Hon. and Learned Judge Advocate had said that he wished to retain the system of corporal punishment, because he wished to retain the power of governing —well, he added. It was to obviate the discre tion with which that power was exercised that he (Mr. Hume) wished. Every body knew that it was no uncommon thing to see youths of seventeen placed on Courts-Martial, and called on to give their opinions first; every one who was in the least acquainted with the army was aware how much the opinions of superior officers influenced their juniors in age or in standing. He was decidedly opposed, therefore, to the exercise of a discretionary power by Courts-Martial. It was a disgrace to the country to keep up an army, and to maintain order among those composing it by means which would not be re sorted to in the instance of the meanest citizen. The soldiers composing the British army were dealt with as if they were men who had not the common feelings of human nature. They were denied the opportunity of earning rewards, and they were punished in the most cruel manner for any fault. The army of England was not kept up with the sole view of defending the country, but also with the view of supporting the sons of a certain aristocratic party in the nation.—( An in dignant shout of " No," from the Opposition► benches.) In France every Marshal of Bonaparte's army and Court was drawn from the ranks raised by the conscriptions. In Eng land, out of the 290 Generals, and Colonels without number, how many had served as privates? He believed the account was easily calculated.—( Cries of "Oh I") The Hon. Mem ber concluded by protesting against the conclusion come to in the Report of the Commission on the subject of corporal pu nishment, and expressing a hope that, as the diminution of capital punishment had had the effect of diminishing capital crime in civil society, the same results would be found to ob tain, if the cruelty of corporal punishment were abolished in the army. Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON and Mr. HUME ex changed a few words in explanation. Lord 110 WICK expected the Hon. Member who had in troduced this motion would have gone into the real difficulties of the case, and suggested some consistent plan for removing them. He, however, through the whole course of his speech, had not heard a word of rational argument on the practical bearings of the subject. When the Hon. Member declared that a soldier, previous to enlisting, entered into such an es timate as this, " I can stand the travaux forces, the boulet, and the galleys, but I cannot endure the thought of two hun dred lashes," he thought the Hon. Member must draw largely , on his imagination. No man enters the army with the expec tation of enduring punishment. The discretion necessarily vested in commanders for preserving subordination appeared to be particularly objected to ; but it should be considered that the same act of insubordination in different circumstances pro duced very different results on the service, and deserved a cor responding difference of punishment. Eight years ago the corporal punishments inflicted in the army exceeded every other species, but the order of Lord Hill had since then had the good effect of reducing them one-half, and they were now only applied in cases where they really ought to be. Th e Hon. Member had said that the absence of reward, combined with the system of corporal punishment in our army, ex cluded good and desirable persons from enlisting in it. Now on this point the Hon. Member was not singular in his views. Before the Report was printed, he ( Lord Howiek) wrote to the Commander-in - Chief, to state his impression that it would be very desirable that the systems of rewards should be tried to as.great an extent as it consistently could, and the result of the correspondence that ensued was such, that he felt en abled to assure the house that whatever could be done in the way of rewards for the benefit of the soldiery certainly would. _ ( H eat .) He did not, however, think that a proper system of rewards was necessarily connected with that of promotion. What way had the soldier of distinguishing himself in time of peace Suppose that he behaved as well as possible during ten years of peace, what good would it do to the service to make the man an ensign ?__( hear.) But it was impossible, is time of peace to promote men for good conduct.. A man might grow advanced in age in the ranks before he could at tain promotion, and it would be only mocking bins to promise it. For instance, the list of commissions given away last year was 75. Suppose that number distributed among 100,000 MCI, He would appeal to the Hon. Member dis tinguished for his arithmetical knowledge—( A laugh)—to determine whether the chance of one being attained by a private would be much greater than of his getting the 20,0001. prize in the lottery ?—( Laughter.) To argue, there fore, that such distribution of promotions could have any effect in the shape of rewards in time of peace was very fallacious. It was said that the French soldiers were promoted from the ranks, but at what time ? At the age of 26, 27, or 28, per- Imps, after 16, 17, or 18 years service. But the Hon. Mem ber had admitted that it was necessary also to provide a supe rior grade of officers ; the chances, therefore, of promotion would, under hiS proposed system, be still smaller than in France. In the time of war, indeed—as in the wars of Napo leon,_when ranks were thinned with such rapidity—promot ion afforded the niost effectual stimulus to good conduct ; but even then be contended the necessity for punishment was not done away with. What was the real question befoite them ? The providing a properly effective punishment for repressing the irregularities of individuals of this troublesome class who get into thb army.—( hear, hear.) Suffering and shame were the essentials of all punishments that could be adopted, and he would ask if the Gallant Member had attempted to estimate the amount of pain and shame inflicted under the opposite sys tems of England and France ? He deprecated the amount of pain inflicted by flogging ; but he ( Lord Howick) had never heard it said that it was not efficacious. The Hon. Member for Barnstable had lately moved for a return of the state of punishments in the English army, and as it had only been furnished to-day lie would quote a few facts therefrom, in il lustration. During the last five years 1,227 persons had suf fered corporal punishment a first time ; 172 of these had been punished a second time, and only thirty-two a s third time. During the same period 6,571 men had been sent to prisbn a first time, 1,790 a second time, and 673 a third time. On the whole there were rather less than onC-seventh flogged a second time, and rather less than two-sevenths sent to gaol a second time. The men flogged a third time only bore the proportion to those flogged a first time as 1 to 40, while those sent to gaol a third time were as 1 to 10.—(Hear.) Even in America, where the most improved system of prison disci pline was in force, they were not able to do without corpora punishment in the army. If it were dispensed with how w ouh'* subordination be established? Discharge would not do in cases, for it was not felt as a punishment by all, and at best, it only enabled a Commander to dispense with any other. In the metropolitan police force it was felt as a very severe. pu nishment, and had been attended with effects proporti'incd to its application, which was . pretty extensive ; for, out of a force of 3,400 men, the dismissals had excessded 400. , Several Honourable Members had suggested tl,! fqent of petal corpt,l but these he could assure the house had been found in practice dtte't4 etatory.- - ( Hear, hear.) Since the opinion of the Freneil had been given in evidence, the Committee had the opportu nity of receiving a report made by Marshal Soult to the King of France in 1832 and 1 833 on the state of the penal cerepeniee iii that amy l and his conclusiv e o pi n i on was t h at they were a decided faitere. On the subject of solitary im prisdnmeet, he IT dirq admit that up to a eettain point it wns an tidritirpbl ars4ngeitient = but he had looked with great in tercet into jilt: teititheny of the Rev. Mr. Steuart of Aber deen, respecting Its titteratititt in Psccifirind, grid be Found that, although it was calculated to succeed in mativ histeeees, it was by no means the universal panacea it had been described, and that what was meant in mercy had frequently a different result. The French service employed three different species of punishment instead of flogging these were the travaux foreess, the boast . ; and the galleys; all very severe and dis graceful; where each of the erireirtals was condemned to suffer in the sight of all. The punishment of the boulet ought, per haps; to be classed with that of flogginss, far it was actual cor poral punieliment of a very serious kind. Men were kept for fist or ten yems at hard work together, wholly shut up from the World, dragging ti cannon ball affixed to the body by a chill, the French array was very , different from ours, made up as it Wag of foilitli-flftlis conscripts and one-fifth sub stitutes. The crimes of' did latter mast an the nature of things be far more easily restrained by the agency and example or a superior class in their ranks than in ours, which were all corn posed of substitutes. The Hon. Member for Middlesex laid great grog on the good effect of the principle of rewards on those who voluntarily entered the French ranks, but he (Lord Howick) believed they were not a whit better than those who voluntarily entered our own. But the Hon. Member, assu ming the contrary, had jumped to an erroneous conclusion. The fact was, that in the Ptenell army more severe punish. melte note actually in use, than those which were now pro posed to be bite away with in ours, without at the same time providitig or stibstitiititig any others of a better class. But in the Yreeeii they eorpbral punishment was very far from being done away with, eetteithstanding ail that was said, for the pri vates punished those wiscifti 'they thinly deserve it at their hands, as on active service the whole cottipetty suffered military re straint to the default of their comrades. Under such circum stances they Infilet the punishment of the sabot with go much seventy that the ()Wendell flit frequently sent to the hospital in consequent e, l§ottiething of the same kind is found prevail ing in our service, tettfied 011'1011y Courts-Martial, though the commanders do their best to elifiek it, The condemned are beaten with the slings of the muskets, and with a degree of severity that far exceeds that of the lash. If corporal punish ments were abolished by the House the men would be driven, in their own defence, to adopt this course systematically. The good soldier is as entious for ties punishment of the bad as his Commander can be.--(dheers:) lilt would beg to call the attention of the House to the iiiigetetS given by the Member for Middlesex (Mr. Hume) to one or Laid questions put to him when examined before the Commissional. [The answers were read. The substance of them was, that for the preven tion of plunder by the men on service, and to presant violation of orders, he saw no means but corporal punishment:, and would not do away with it in time of war. If men turned to plunder they must be repressed. ] If such were the opinions of the Hon. Member for Middlesex, how could he vote for this motion, which went to do away with military punishment altogether, whether at home or on service ? He would also ask the Hon. Member for Surrey (Major Beauclerk) how he could vote for it ? Were those Hon. Gentlemen prepared to give a vote in opposition to their own recorded opinion? If they admitted that corporal punishment was necessary on ac tual service they admitted all he required, because in this way the power of corporal punishment would remain the law.— ( Hear, hear, hear.) He drew a great distinction be tween the exercise of the power and the existence of it. , Let it be once abolished at home, and it would be impossible to retain it on service. The Member for Middlesex was asked before the Commission why he would subject the British sol dier to the degradation of corporal punishment before the enemy, where the danger, and possible inconvenience, of such a course, must be greater than at home ? The Hon. Gentle man evaded the question; When pressed upon the point the Hon. Member said nothing to the purpose. He would not answer upon compulsion. The Hon. Member does not deny that if the punishment be once abolished at home it must be abolished on service. How could he reconcile this with what he had before stated, that it would be impossible to do away with the punishment altogether? Sir John Woodford's evi dence did not coincide with the opinion of those who would entirely abolish the punishment. What he said was, that it ought not to be inflicted at home, for the common and ordinary military offences. Now in this he (Lord Howick) did not differ from him. In fact Sir John Woodford formed a plan, not for doing away with corporal punish ment, but f or the more speey infliction of it. He road the evidence of the second officer to whom he alluded, Sir Octavius Carey, with great attention, and so far as he could understand it he appeared to be quite undecided on the question, to have come to no fixed decision, to be quite a sceptic. In his answers before the Commissioners he said that when in command of the 57th Regiment he endeavoured to obviate the necessity of corporal punishment, and succeeded in a great measure, but not completely. The men were aware that he had determined not to inflict corporal punishment, but they were aware at the same time that he had the power to do so. Now he held in his hand returns from this regiment for four months, showing the number of corporal punishments in flicted in that time. These four months did not elapse at the time he first joined the regiment, in 1820, and when he might be supposed nut to have yet entered upon the experiment of doing away with corporal punishments. Tile first month em braced by this Return was November, 1822. Now, on the 2d of this month a man was sentenced to 300 lashes, and received the whole ; on the Bth of November, 300 lashes, the whole in flicted; on the 28th of November, 300 lashes, 225 inflicted; on the 30th of November, 300, the whole inflicted ; on the 2d of December, 300, the whole inflicted • on the 20th of De cember, 300 lashes, all inflicted ; on die 2d of .January, there were two punishments, the one of 600, the other of 800 lashes _in the case of the 600 there was a pardon, but the whole of the 800 were inflicted; on the 3d of February, 300, the whole inflicted ; and on the Ist, another sentence of 300 lashes, all inflicted. Now here, in a regiment where an en deavour was making to do away with corporal punishments, there were no less than ten inflicted in the short space of four months. In each of the ten cases the punishment ex ceeded the maximum now proposed by the Government. Whatever therefore might have been the theory of Sir Octa vius Carey his practice did not seem to have coincided with it. He could not conclude without referring to the evidence of the Duke of Wellington, given from his experience in the Penin sular war. He said that in the beginning of the war they were obliged to inflict a great deal of punishment, but towards the close of it the army was brought into such a state of discipline that the exercise of the power became almost entirely unneces sary. It had been said the power was not now exercised, and therefore that there could be no use in retaining it. The argu ment was not conclusive. The Member for Middlesex made some allusion to motives, as if the Government could be influ enced by party motives in such a question as this. Why, if they looked only at selfish objects, they would have the strongest inducements to concur in the motion. Mr. ROBINSON thought the House ought to affirm the proposition now before them.. A better system of rewards and encouragements would render it unnecessary, at least at home. Major BE AUCL ERK said there was one assertion of the Noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) at which he could not help expressing his surprise, though no person held his high military talents in greater admiration. The Noble Duke said that flogging was no longer considered a disgrace in the army. It was held as a disgrace by every honest well conducted man in the army. They had been told that men were so fond of flogging as even to flog each other when com pany Courts-Martial decided. In cases of company Courts- Martial he never knew more than eight or ten lashes given. A Noble Lord (Lord W. Bentinek) who honoured that House by his presence, not because he was a Lord, but be cause of his high character, had done away with this punish ment among the native troops of India. If it were abolished among those who were, comparatively, barbarians, was it to be supposed that it could be much longer continued among Bri tish troops? '['hey must alter their system, and hold out en couragements to enter the army. Ile often witnessed in coun try towns and villages the horrors in which flogging was held. lie was himself once assailed by a mob, who cried out that flogging was the motto of the regiment. Sir H. HARDINGE rose, and said that when he looked at the evidence of the Hon. and Gallant Member he found the most distinct admission that words could convey, that the Hors. and Gallant Member never had, and never would main tain, that it was possible to do away with corporal punish ment.—( Hear.) Major BE AU CLE RK said that his words were, that cor poral punishment might be necessary in actual warfare. Sir H. H RD IN G E resumed—ln answer to the question, No. 782, the Hon. and Gallant Member said, " I have never maintained that on actual service corporal punishment could be done away with.—( Hear, hear.) I think it stands to rea son that the officers should have some additional power."— (Hear.) Now he (Sir 11. Hardinge) would appeal to the House whether it was possible for any man to come to an un derstanding of this passage opposed to that which lie had stated ? Now, when the Hon. and Gallant Officer, who had not had not an opportunity of. seeing much service, and who ventured to criticise the evidence of the Duke of Wellington, and to refer to that Noble Lord who had held the highest situation in India, and who had taken upon himself a step the most responsible man ever took--( Hear, hear)—wheit the lion. and Gallant Member appealed to that Noble Lord, he ( Sir 11. Hardinge) felt convinced, from his knowledge of that Noble Lord's sentiments, he would agree with him ( Sir li. Hardinge), and the Hon. and Gallant Member himself, that corporal punishment could not be done away with in actual service. Nothing could be more important than the testimony of the Hon. Member for Middlesex on this subject. That lion. Member stated that nothing could be more clear than that every officer in the field ought to have the power of in flicting punishment, and that it was absolutely impossible to conduct an army with any success unless the officer possessed this Power. What, he would ask, was th e o p inion ex p ressed the lion. and Gallant Member for Westminster? That Ho's. and Gallant Member stated that it was impossible to do away with this punishment. The evi dence g iven to the Com esission b y that Gallant Officer was m arked by great modesty and ability, but he took the narrowest 'ground that it was pos sible for any man to take on such a su b j ect. The Honourable and Gallant Officei• said that he was in favour of the abolition of corp ora l pu n i s hment, not because it was cruel but because he thought that it had failed in its o bject—because lie thought that such a species of pun i s hment irritated th e p ublic mind, said that Government was bound to submit itself to the public op inion. But what did this Galla nt Officer do when he went abroad ? - He declared that it was necessary to retain coporal punishment abroad, and that he thought the Commander-in -ChM of an army in the field ought to be a dictator. The ' 1 10 416 would probably recollect a motion nice by this same , Gallant Officer ; but he ( Sir H. Hardinge) would say that since the ()giant Officer had been abroad, he did not think l'htit• Id tiny arrity which ever left the shores of England cor ptti4l hitct haed ditttlfal to the same extent as in the British Leptithl.. - -:-1 Kaf, tee.) Majoa BE A IJCLgIII4 rdit' tf; Act': 'The Hon. and Gallant Member has spoken of tt liiethlt:i‘ ti this House who is absent. I appeal to the House whethef if js fair ?—( Sir H. HARDINGE said that if the Ilort. tirid C:atilant Member had permitted him to finish the F.entenee he have perceived that he (Sir H. Hardinge) entirely agreed with the Gallant Officer, the Member for Westminster. He would repeat that corporal punishment had been carried in the corps which the Hon. and Gallant Officer commanded to an extent never known in the Hritish army; but he would also add, that the peculiar circumstances of the corps in all probability justi fied the course which had been 6dopted: In this force it had been found necessary to have recotitS;e' in the proYoft without the interference of a Court-Martial. If, ;then the troops were drawn out, any men were found dirty, they were at once taken out of the ranks and flogged by the provost. St;ch a power as this was never exercised by the Duke of Wellingtol7 but the House ought to make allowance for the position of Ole Hon. and Gallant Officer, and consider the many circumstances which could he adduced to justify the course which he had pursued. He (Sir H. Hardinge) would, however, honestly say that in his experience he had never before known of such severe and numerous floggings. Many observations had been made on the evidence of another officer, Sir Oetavius Carey, who commanded the 57th Regiment. He (Sir H. Har dinge) would confess that he had never been more asto nished than when he read the evidence of that Gallant Officer. He would also confess that to his comprehension it was perfectly unintelligible—( Hear, hear)—and that he could not at all make out that Gallant Officer's system of dis cipline. He thought, however, that he had some knowledge of the discipline of that regiment. Thirty years ago he (Sir H. Hardinge).was a Captain in the 57th regiment, and a few years afterwards, from the circumstance of his having gone abroad on the staff, but being still a Captain in that regiment, he, of course, had opportunities of knowing the materials of which the regiment was composed. The regiment was re cruited in the neighbourhood of London, and at a time when it was impossible to make a selection of men. It then being war time Government was glad to get soldiers, and he would fairly state that the men of this regiment, though they were physically well adapted to make good soldiers, were, in point of character, not what any officer would wish to com mand. He (Sir H. Hardinge) saw this regiment going into action at the battle of Albuera, and never hid lie see men, under circumstances of such peril and danger, conduct them selves with more bravery or heroism. The regiment was then so irregular and so addicted to plunder that it certainly was very much operated upon by the provost martial. The regiment went into action, and he would state what the result of the action was. The regiment had 25 officers. Of these 23 were either killed or wounded; and of its complement of about 520 men 387 were killed or wounded. Lord Beres ford, in his despatch giving a detail of the action, said that it was observed that all the men, particularly the 57th regi. ment, fell in their ranks as they fought, and that every wound was in front. This was not a regiment of high moral charac ter; bud hewould say that if in the course of the campaign it had been neces.:. =try to undertake any difficult and serious en terprise, m ete w a no regiment in vihich he would have felt greater confidence thati 57th regiment. Sir O. Carey commanded the regiment In 1824, and stated in his evi dence that it was reported to the Acljutan. - .Jeneral to be in a most excellent condition. It was shortly after..-, ards sent out to New South Wales, and when it arrived there the en often self-mutilated themselves, or committed thefts, In order 12 b e discharged. He should, therefore, infer from these circum stances, that the system of Sir 0. Carey had failed most egregiously in the 57th regiment. Now, with regard to the English army in Spain. Ia 1810 the Duke of Wellinzton found the army in a very disorganized state ; several of the battalions were so ill-disciplined that the Duke of Wellington was obliged to make a report to the Adjutant-General upon the subject. (The Honourable and Gallant Member read extracts from his Grace's report, showing the disorganised state of the army at the period in question.) What mea sures did the Duke of Wellington take to reduce the army to a proper state of discipline? He had recourse to the pro vost martial—he punished severely, and in a few instances death was inflicted. But what was the result of this system? The Duke of Wellington brought the army to that state of discipline which he described in his evidence before the Commissioners. His Grace said, " I always thought I could have gone anywhere, and done anything, with that army. It was impossible to have a machine better mounted and in better order, and in a better state of discipline than that army was."--(Hear, hear.) General Fane, who commanded two columns of cavalry, having in charge the materiel of the army, said that the conduct of the troops gave such satisfaction, that even the French Government expressed its approbation of their conduct. The Hon. and Gallant Member then referred to the evidence of Lord Loughborough, who said that several privates in his regiment had expressed opinions against the abolition of this punishment. It was contended that corporal punishment rather tended to harden the character; but the same Noble Lord, in his evidence, said that lie had four of the best non-commissioned officers in his regiment, all of whom had been flogged two or three times. The Hon. Member for Chippenham had referred to his (Sir H. Hardinge's) evidence with respect to the Prussian army. It was true that in that army soldiers of the second class were liable to be punished by forty lashes, and this power was vested in the Captains of com panies. He, whilst Secretary at War, had inserted an article of war, declaring, that if ally officer struck a soldier he was liable to be brought to a court-martial and cashiered. It was impossible for any two armies to be more distinct than the • English and the Prussian armies, and it was totally impos sible to institute any comparison between them. He should say the same of the French army. The English army was now in the highest state of discipline, and he thought that it would be the height of madness to alter a system which had been found so successful. The Hon. Member fur Middlesex had stated that the rewards for the army ought to be increased. He (Sir H. Hardinge), whilst Secretary at War, bad endea voured to increase them. He had ordered that a medal should be annually given to a non-commissioned officer and a private of every battalion in the army. The same Hon. Member said that commissions ought to be given to deserving non-com missioned officers. He (Sir H. Hardinge) would say that be fore it was attempted to adopt this system it would be better first to procure persons out of that rank competent to hold commissions. His (Sir Henry Hardinge's) own opi nion was, that great danger would arise from a renewal of this species of punishment, if any cessation took place of punishment. There was one othei• point to which he was desirous of calling the attention of the House. The Noble Lord opposite said that if five or six years ago attention had been paid to these matters the question would not now be in volved in so much difficulty. He (Sir H. Hardinge) came into office in 1828, and in 1829 the whole military code and articles of war were revised and consolidated by him.—( Hear, hear.) One of those articles restricted the ,number of lashes which a court-martial was empowered to award, and if any blame attached to any one he would remind the Noble Lord that he succeeded the Noble Lord Palmerston, now sitting on the Ministerial Bench, who held the office of Secretary of War for seventeen or eighteen years.—( Hear.) In saying this, he could assure the Noble Lord he meant nothing invi dious, he only referred to it in reply to the side-wind attack which the Noble Lord had made upon him. He thought that it would be most unwise to alter the present system. It was very well known as a matter of history that the present military system had been the most successful one ever adopted. But he would ask this question, was England a military nation ? He ( Sir H. Hardinge) would say that it was not ; that the feeling of the people was decidedly against keeping up a large military force; but, in spite of all these obstacles, he would say, that from the days of Wolfe in Canada, the Clives in Canada, Abercrombie in Egypt, and Wellington in Spain and Portu gal, the British army had carried with honour his Majesty's arms into every quarter of the globe—that in peace it had been subordinate to the civil power—and that, in short, in pliability to all the duties of an army it had never been exceeded. Lord HOW IC K said a few words in explanation. Sir E. CODRINGTON denied that the mutiny at the Nore had been occasioned by flogging. The mutiny was oc casioned by keeping the impressed seamen in confinement, Sir H. FE IiGUSSON said that, having been forty yt ars in the army, he could net remain silent on the present occasion. Nobody could be more hostile to corporal punishment than lie was, but he could not assent to see it done away with entirely. Dr. BALD WIN rose, amidst loud cries of " Divide, 'di vide." He had before voted against military torture, and he should do so now, were he to follow the impulse of his feelings , but he had a public duty to discharge, and he felt that he should not be discharging that duty conscientiously were he now to vote for the immediate abolition of corporal punishment, in spite of the opinion of so many high military authorities that the abolition must be gradual. Colonel THOMAS had commanded a regiment eight years, and, from his own experience, he could say that corporal punishment might be done away with by the substitution of another severe punishment. He would say, let the men be subjected to bard drilling from sunrise to sunset, as he had done with the men of his own regiment, and with success. Colonel SIBT HO I?.?—Much as he abhorred corporal pun ishment, he vet thought that the power to inflict it should he retained, although it might not be used. When he saw so many distinguished officers, and among them the Duke of Wellington, favourable to the continuance of the system, or at least opposed to an immediate abolition, he would be ashamed to oppose his own individual opinion to theirs. The House then divided, when the numbers were— For the original motion For the amendment 95 Majority for the Speaker's leaving the Chair _ll7 Mr. LENNA RD said that before the Speaker left the Chair, he was desirous that the House should decide the ques tion whether flogging should continue in the army during a time of peace.-( Cries of " Order, order.") What he wished was—and he had a clear light to take that course—to give the House an o pportunity, by opposing the Speaker's leaving the Chair, of saying whether, in time of peace, this punishment should continue or be abolished. The SPEAKER suggested that the Hon. Gentleman would have an opportunity of attaining the object which he had in view, either on the bringing up of the report, or the third reading. Mr. LENNAR D- should renew the subject, either on the bringing up of the report, or the third reading, by proposing the introduction of a clause. Major FANCOURT begged to ask the Noble Lord op posite, whether it was intended that the maximum of punish ment to he inflicted by Courts-martial should be restricted to 200 or 100 lashes ? Lord HO WIC K was understood to say, in reply, that the power - of Courts-martial to punish was not to extend beyond 200 lashes. The SPEAKER then left the Chair, and the House resolved itself into Committee on the Bill. Mr. \VAKLEY suggested that the more conv,'!nicnt course for the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lennard) would .be to bring forward his motion when the report was brought up. Mr. LENNARD assented to this, and gave notice to that cfreet. The Dill then passed through the Committee; awl/ the House havirr i t;psumed, the Report was ordered to be received to-morrow (thtx slay). The Marine iN,utiny Bill also passed through- a Committe, and the: Report was likewise ordered to be received to-morrow (this day). The , Seamen's Fund (Shetland) Bill passed through a Committee, and was ordered to be reported. The School Sites Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Friday. The Rates Bill was also read second time, and ordered' to be committed. The other Orders of the D a y having been dispos e d o f, the House, on the motion of Mr. Bannerman, Adjourned, at Ode o' C lock. DUTY ON SOAP. TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN. Stn,—As a constant reader of your independent and JiLeral paper, and one extensively engaged in the mann factufe of soap, I use the liberty of requesting your aid iir convincing . this session to Government of the necessity of doing so methin g elieve us of the trammels of the Excis e, and severe losses imp . os ,d updn us by the smuggler. The mea sure lately introduced or the repeal of the duties, and an additional duty on foreig - n tallow was absurd—in so far as regarded the public, it was ncither more or less than im posing- a duty on the public of aht;ut 1,400,000/., for the sake of being relieved to the extent of little more than 500,000/. This surely was an Irish mode of relief. How ever desirable it might be for the soap trade to get quit of the Excise, and so great a necessary to the comforts of the people bcieg cheapened, it must be admitted by every rea sonable person that the state of the revenue could not admit of the total repeal at the present time. All we can ask is the adoption of such measures as will give the trade relief, and make the article cheaper to the poor, without injuring the revenue—and this is perfectly practicable. The late reduc tion of half the duties, though tending much to check the smuggler, is far from sufficient to put a stop to the illicit trade that is carried on to the great injury of the fair trader, and which is now carried on to a feaeful extent by the smugglers of Irish soap into this country. The late Com mission appointed to report upon the soap tradol2ave made out a strong case in our favour ; they have showo dearly, by the strongest evidence, both on the part of the truie and the Excise, that the manufacture of soap is crippled exceed ingly by the Excise laws—so much so, that all the improvo 'Lents of which the trade is susceptible are totally pre vented ; and the worst of it is, two-thirds of these regula tions are by no means calculated to secure the revenue, but cause eternal molestation to the traders. They also point out, that by reducing the duty on hard soap from I,d. to Id. per pound, and the same extended to Ireland, the revenue would. be increased beyond what it now is ; and, by adopting a new mode of exacting the duties, the trade would get quit of the present oppres sive Excise laws, and consequently be at liberty to work to more advantage, and produce a better article at a lower rate. I observe most of the liberal press have had some thing said on the soap trade ; and, during the recess, you could not render a greater benefit to the trade, and the pub '2ic at large, than by giving a good leading article on the subject ; and you will have the advantage of the Commis sioners' Repoli, to enable you to do ample justice to all interested. 'Were Ito offer an opinion different from what the Commissioners barge recommended, I would say reduce it to one half the present tigty ; then you would annihilate smuggling, render the article eery cheap to the poor people, and make it more palatable to the Irish ; and I am con vinced that this low duty, from the additional consump tion, and total prevention of smuggling, with the extensiom of it to Ireland, would produce a revenue not at all short of the present. I could almost pledge my existence on the result being what I state. Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not go far wrong, in trying, the experi ment. Coupling this with a more efficient and rational system of Excise regulations, the manufacture of soap would acquire new life, and very soon arrive to great per fection. And why should any practical relief be for a mo ment withheld from a manufacture of so much importance, in many a point of view, to the country ? I must conclude, by earnestly recommending a perusal of the very able Report, drawn up with so much care and ability by Sir Henry Parnell, and I am persuaded you will be satisfied with the conclusion come to (see p. 48). The only omission they have made, when recommending the draw back of the whole duty when exported, is, that they do not allow what would be equal to the duty paid upon the raw material-31ie. per ton would cover it. Tallow pays some thin.- more than 605., but half a ton only is requisite to make a ton of soap. }t. in and palm oil both pay a duty. We cannot so well compete With continental houses in ex ports to America, unless relieve. 4 of these duties. Tim Report will show to what extent Dv business is carried (see p. 71), and I am on the eve of going to London, with the intention of seeing Mr. Spring Rice, .ins I hope you will aid my endeavours by a pithy paper 00 the subject. All the. trade are deeply interested at this time, to , know if the Commissioners' recommendations are to be acted upon.—l remain, Sir, yours respectfully, Leith, April 8, 1836. WILLIAM TAYLOR. Mr. BURKE'S HISTORY OF THE LANDED GENTRY.-The third volume of this important work, which will contain accounts of all the eminent families in the 11,0itcd Kingdom, is just published ; and the fourth volume, com pleting the work, will appear in the course of the presevt year. "Of all the books which have, of late years, issued from the press, we know of none whose passport to posterity is more sure. It will be a standard book for generations to come. We believe the history of the world furnishes no other instance of an intermediate class of individuals lK.tween the aristocracy and the great mass of the people—so distinguished for moral excellence, intellectual attainment, high character, and great opulence, as the Commoners of Great Britain. This record of their family history must be invaluable forrefereace." _Observer. The difficulties and drawbacks which surnames lit trude upon the holy state of matrimony generally, as some of our readers may perchance be aware of, manifest their unge nial presence after the honeymoon. In some cases, however, they beset the luckless candidate for admission to the Hyme ' neat temple even at the first approaches to the threshold—so it was in the case of M. Landet, who appeared as defendant be fore the Tribunal do Paix, a few days since, to answer the demand of M. N—, residing at the Batignolles, an ancient advocate, who, retired from the. courts of Law, now practises only in that of Hymen. The parties being " in presence," M. N— proceeded to expound the nature of his compla:nt in I the shape of a hill of costs :- 1. For reflections, reasonings, and considerations upon the age, " condition," fortune, pretensions, educa tion, and character, which M. Landet was entitled to expect in a bride; three consultations lBfr 2. Demand in marriage made for M. Landet to M Gibbloureau, sire of Mademoiselle Annette Wilhel mine Rosalie Gibbleurcau, his daughter, the which demand was afterwards. dropped, because my client, M. Landet, found the lady too pretty in her person, and not pretty enough in her purse, which was not my fault 3. Correspondence with Mademoiselle de R—p, daugh ter of a wealthy silversmith, which was cut short in Iris consequence of the said suitor's not keeping I ap pointment, which was not my fault 4. Mademoiselle de cab-hire, which I was obliged to pay, on account of the lady's choler at M Landet's not coming to the rendezvous, which was not my fault A long letter which I wrote myself the same evening to M. Landet, to make him sensible of his want of politeness, which was not my fault 6. Omnibus expenses, for going several times to M. Landet, to acquaint hint with the little success of my endeavours, which was not my fault 6 Tof al 6sfr. Having finished his reading, the venerable complainant re freshed himself with a pinch of true brown, and then sat down. Upon which M. Mathieu Andree Aimable Landet, the plain tiff, citizen and shopkeeper, got up to couuterplead, and, in so doing, declared that he was now " Benedick, the married man." and without the intervention of the complainant. M. Landet owned, nevertheless and notwithstanding, that he had re quested the " time-honoured" plaintiff to look him out a cars posa, withlots apeman. but that it had never, for the six teenth part of a second, entered into his (M. Landet's) head to make any pecuniary recompense. , The compensation he had proposed. was two or three dinners, which he bad the honour of giving to M. N--, in a COMIC it fain style. Tim plaintiff, however, could not or would not digest this mode of pitying his fees, and was proceeding to reproduce the funda mental facts of the case, when M. le Juge de Pair thus inter rupted him :—" The plaintiff's demand is non-receivable, and be must pay the costs." The worthy magistrate might lure added—" Which is not my fault."—Galignani's 111c.NA'nyer. Gl.3?tirnhoGntovyodgiu4:lrrirtyla?Laiallibacnrtiest.itaobliele above him, suspended by a rope when working, and a piece of rock which a o c f c t i i t i l e et q lt w o a c o c .rn or e r i e l occurred at broke the rope, anti. precipitated him to the earth. There was had previously attempted to be blasted, gave. way another workman beneath him, and the falling mass covered them, and killed both on the spot. It was upwards of two hours before one of the bodies was dug out. Another m an Carnarron Herald. was very severely injur ed.— h• A letter front Vienna atm=lces t . at the coronation Or the Emperor at Prague will probably take plce in June, and not be deferred till the autumn, as has been stated. • Pre are a lready making for Pre parations the ceremony. A s um o f 30,000 du cats has been assigned for the coronation of the Em ,,,ron and 25,000 for that of the Empress. SI it G EmtGE CI. Elt K .---.A . 6 the cawiuw of the rooks portends a storm, it is worth while to - • that the c unning Baronet has come down front London, mcttwit and com menced a canvas in this county within these fewdays.lt is stated, we believe upon good authority, that he accounts for this course of proceeding, b i ft. • rin , to the great proba bility of the,„Lord s u„ • y'e 'l' .7 ,. 'awl tg out the Irish Muneipal Bill,— Scotsman. %